CHAN TAK FUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000023/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1975

-----------------

 

BETWEEN
	CHAN Tak Fung	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 13th March, 1975.

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of indecent exposure and fined $150. He appeals against his conviction.

2. The evidence upon which the appellant was convicted came from the complainant, a married woman who lives in premises which overlook the dwelling of the appellant, and her son, a boy aged 10. It is obvious from the evidence of the complainant that she is a woman who spends a considerable time looking out of her window and peering into the affairs of her neighbours. She admitted that she had made several complaints to the police which had not been prosecuted except in one case where there was no conviction. I gather from this part of her evidence that her complaints were of conduct of a similar nature to that of which she complains in the present case.

3. The complainant said that when she saw the appellant indecently exposing himself in his own dwelling she called her 10 year old son to look. This is certainly very extraordinary conduct on the part of a responsible mother. The boy was called and gave evidence which was somewhat equivocal in its nature. He was aged 10 but the magistrate allowed him to be affirmed without apparently any question as to whether he was a child of "tender years" or not.

4. It is well-known that in cases of this nature corroboration, although not necessary in law, is most desirable. This is particularly so in cases where no real harm has been done. It would be otherwise had the exposure been to some young children who were frightened in consequence. In the event I am left with a doubt as to the propriety of this conviction and, therefore, the appeal will be allowed, the conviction quashed and the fine, if paid, be returned to the appellant.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Gunston of Messrs. Gunston & Chow for appellant.

Niamatullah, c.c. for Crown/Respondent.